Report: VA Grand Jury Investigating Julian Assange

Via CBS News, Mark Stephens, attorney for Wikileaks' Julian Assange, appears on David Frost's al Jazeera TV show and says they've received word a grand jury has been empaneled in Alexandria, VA to investigate criminal charges.

"We have heard from the Swedish authorities there has been a secretly empaneled grand jury in Alexandria...just over the river from Washington DC, next to the Pentagon," Stephens said. "They are currently investigating this, and indeed the Swedes we understand have said that if he comes to Sweden, they will defer their interest in him to the Americans. Now that shows some level of collusion and embarrassment, so it does seem to me what we have here is nothing more than holding charges...so ultimately they can get their mitts on him."

There are certainly some shoddy reasons that a grand jury would have for being interested in bringing Julian Assange stateside, but maybe there are some less-than-shoddy reasons, too.

For instance, although Julian Assange isn't directly involved, couldn't there be criminal charges involved in the cyber attacks on the VISA, Amazon.com, etc. websites by the Organization called 'Annonymous' that were reportedly done in his behalf? The way he's played things coy and clever so far, some folks might suspect that he knows more than he's said so far. If there are possible criminal actions involved in the cyber attacks, I could understnd why a Grand Jury would be interested in talking to him about the matter.

H'mm, if there are no charges in Sweden, shouldn't a principled British Judge at least release Assange on bail? The let the guy who is alleged to have killed his bride in South Africa out on bail. Are British judges really controlled by the US DOJ?

If someone has a document in an encrypted file, and there is is a strong possibility that it contains evidence related to crime that is under investigation, can a judge issue a search warrant that would compel the owner/creator of that file to unpack it so that the court/prosecution/defense can determine whether or not the document concealed in the file contains information relevant to the case?

Obviously, this would be a mater that would in play for whatever WikiLeaks "Doomsday File" may (or may not) exist. But I'd hate to think that a corporation like, um, well, say, Halliburton, could get away with stashing anything they want in 24-bit .rardotzipper files and not have to worry that no court of law could ever examine the material.

A search warrant can only be issued upon a showing to the judge, under oath, that there probable cause to believe that something, described with some specificity, that is legally subject to seizure will be found in the place to be searched (which must also be described with specificity) and the time the warrant is to be executed. The categories of things subject to seizure are contraband, instrumentalities of crimes that have been or are being committed, evidence of a crime that has been or is being committed, and persons subject to arrest (or rescue, such as kidnap victims). A search warrant does not compel a person to do or say anything, other than not to interfere or resist. I have seen cases where the FBI, for example, executed a warrant to seize a computer and search it, identified files on the computer that appeared to be of interest, and then couldn't review them because of encryption they couldn't break. To compel a person to answer questions (such as "what is the key to the encryption?") would require a grand jury subpoena, and the person asked the question would then presumably have a Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer.

I'd imagine that this sort of thing makes it difficult to investigate complicated white-collar crimes (similar to the Madoff deceptions) unless or until they eventually collapse under their own weight.